Luke Londo: Amid tragedy, ugly political discourse

Apr. 22, 2013

Luke Londo

Written by

Luke Londo

Detroit Free Press guest writer

The capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings and the shooting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the death of his alleged accomplice and older brother, Tamerlan, culminated a tragic week in America’s history, not just in terms of acts of evil, but in political discourse.

The ugliness of this last week was partially offset by moments of heroism, including the actions of Carlos Arredondo, the peace activist who lost one of his sons in Iraq and the other to suicide. Immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, while hundreds fled from the scene, Arredondo ran towards danger and to Jeff Bauman, whose legs were blown off by the blast. Arredondo wheeled Bauman to safety where he could be treated for his injuries, and undoubtedly saved his life.

The week has been indelible in my mind not just because of the bombing at the Boston Marathon, but the failed Manchin-Toomey Amendment to expand gun background checks in the Senate, and the letters containing ricin sent to President Barack Obama and Senator Roger Wicker. Responses to these events have revealed our political discourse to be as foul as the senseless violence that plagued the Boston Marathon.

After the failed Manchin-Toomey Amendment, which I admittedly did not support, Senate Republicans and red-state Democrats who opposed the bill were labeled as “gutless cowards” and lacking in common sense. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, David Sirota of Salon opined, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.” After police alleged Kevin Curtis to be the perpetrator of the ricin mailings, many gleefully proclaimed him to be a “liberal activist,” and characterized an alleged attempted assassin as representative of liberal ideology. Finally, again after the Boston Marathon, Erik Rush, a conservative columnist, asserted Muslims were to blame and jokingly tweeted, “Yes, they’re evil. Let’s kill them all.” Forgive me for not seeing the humor in such a reprehensible, insensitive “joke.”

(Page 2 of 2)

After 9/11, I saw unity, camaraderie, and empathy that I had never witnessed before. We united as Americans, not by our ideology, religion, or political affiliation. Regrettably, such unity, camaraderie, and empathy have been noticeably absent these past few days. It seems as though in times of tragedy or disagreement, camaraderie and empathy have been replaced with scapegoating and finger-pointing. Unity has been replaced with doubling down on our own ideology, religion, or political affiliation and promulgating our rightness while anyone that doesn’t fit into our own belief system is not just wrong, but sympathetic to terrorists, “gutless cowards,” or attempted assassins.

In politics, religion, and human affairs, there are few, if any, empirical truths. If there were, we wouldn’t have such a diversity of viewpoints, religions, and beliefs. While I have my own religion, political ideology, and party affiliation, I don’t pretend as though perpetrators of senseless acts represent my religious, ideological, or political opponents. The Tsarnaev brothers are as representative of Islam — and Kevin Curtis representative of liberal activists — as the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christians.

Leveling pejoratives and stereotyping individuals as reflective of a movement they happen to identify with, as vindication of our own belief system, is disingenuous at best and grossly irresponsible at worst. This has unquestionably contributed to our state of intense polarization which became so apparent last week. We have drawn lines in the sand, and in times of tragedy and disagreement, we have exacerbated our conflicts of difference by moving further apart from those we either don’t agree with or don’t understand.

In times of tragedy and violence, our political discourse shouldn’t mirror the same ugliness those events reveal. Instead of continuing to draw lines in the sand, it is time for us to start building bridges and start mending fences. We can — and will — continue to disagree, but should do so with the same respect we ought to be extending to those who are different from ourselves.